Why Layton Keeps Losing and Harper Keeps Rolling

Stephen Harper is a vastly better politician than Layton. There is simply no comparison, and last night’s debate proved it.

I don’t have much time to write this post, so I’ll lay it out simply:

There is a very large proportion of Canadians who want a ‘strict father’* as the Prime Minister. The opposite to the strict father is the ‘nurturant parent.’  This style comes across as weak to people wanting a strict father, and they don’t trust such a person to do what is right for the country when times are tough. (As an aside, this is one reason it is much more difficult for a woman to get elected to high office without being a cold, hard Margaret Thatcher-type. Women are naturally seen as nurturers, especially to people who prefer strict fathers as leaders, and therefore are seen as weaker.)

Back to the debates, and Layton made all the same mistakes he made last election. When the other leaders pile on to Stephen Harper, and when he calmly handles the onslaught and sticks to his guns, Harper comes across as a strict father while the others look like teenagers trying to wheedle favours out of Dad. You may not agree with everything the dad says or does, but you sure as hell aren’t going to vote for the teenagers.

Layton and the NDP endlessly compound this error by talking non-stop about how much they care, about the need to support the less fortunate, about how social programs are so important. That all comes across as nurturing, but Canadians are electing a Prime Minister, not a social worker.

Harper, on the other hand, impresses as someone who will make the tough decisions, who will do what needs to be done, who may be a hardass but at least you can count on him to lead.

And this is why Harper is winning, and will continue to win, unless the innumerable scandals perpetrated by his government and cronies bring him down.

The problem the NDP has is that they just don’t get this – and they are arrogant. Where Harper does what needs to be done to win, Layton and the NDP think everyone ‘should’ see things their way. (The Greens are similarly afflicted.) Harper knows damn well many people don’t agree with him, and rather obviously couldn’t care less. But the NDP won’t let go of their precious moral superiority long enough to be objective and accept the fact that they are simply not appealing to a wide swath of Canadians – despite having policies and values that could and should be very attractive to most of us.

If Layton wants to win, he and the NDP must change how they present themselves. I’m not talking about spin, I mean getting some humility and recognizing that not everyone sees the world the same way they do – and maybe there is some truth in that. Once that has been accepted, then the NDP needs to talk to those people in their own language, and that means showing that Jack Layton can be a ‘strict father‘ and a ‘nuturant parent.’

Don’t think it can’t be done; Barack Obama managed to convey both in 2008. (Since then, of course, he’s come across as a total wimp, thus helping to cement the Democrat brand as weak and ineffectual.)

To sum it all up, here is how the two leaders come across:

• Layton: Look how much I care for you! Vote for me and I’ll protect and take care of you! You are much more important that money.
• Harper: Of course I care, but unless the fundamentals – the economy – are sound, nobody will be able to afford to pay for any  ’caring’ programs or anything else.

Guess which approach is winning?

**************************************************

*Background:

George Lakoff (among others) analysed the U.S. federal election scene, curious how the Republicans were consistently able to get people to vote against their own best interests. He discovered that people vote for candidates who fit their idea of what a leader should be, which fell into one of two categories: nurturant parent or strict father.

The Republicans have been brilliant at bringing forward ‘strict father’ types as leaders, with Reagan being the quintessential strict father. Whether you liked Reagan or not, you had to admit that he would do what he thought needed to be done. George Bush II also conveyed this no-bullshit attitude – and so does Stephen Harper, who has clearly studied and followed the Republican success model.